- (1.) BY way of this complaint the complainant has prayed for indemnity compensation in the sum of Rs. 15 lakhs with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date on which the complainant s wife -alleged insured, met with the accident and died, till payment and accident benefit in the like amount coupled with compensation in the sum of Rs. 10,000/ -. The complaint was filed as Consumer Application No. 237 of 2003 before the learned Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panchmahal District on 30.7.2003. The learned Forum found that the claim under the complaint exceeded the pecuniary jurisdiction of the learned Forum. The learned Forum, therefore, passed order on 13.1.2004 relegating the complainant to seek his remedy before this Commission. That is how the complainant is before this Commission by way of this complaint for the aforesaid reliefs.
(2.) IT would appear that opponent Om Kotak Mahindra Limited appeared before the learned Forum and their reply has also been placed on the record of this complaint. The complainant has filed affidavit -in -rejoinder. The complainant has also submitted written arguments in support of the complainant s stand about how the complaint should be admitted and proceeded with further. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that we are required to consider this complaint basically for admission.
(3.) WE have gone through the complaint. We have gone through other pleadings which have incidentally appeared on the record of this complaint. The facts which can be gathered from all the pleadings may briefly be stated below. The complainant s wife Jasobaben Bipinchandra Patel submitted proposal form for getting herself insured under the Basic Product Kotak Endowment Plan of the opponent Insurance Company for a sum of Rs. 15 lakhs through the authorised agent and sent a demand draft of Rs. 13,517/ - on 27.9.2002 to the opponent Insurance Company. Initially it was asserted by the complainant that the opponent sent communication dated 28.12.2002 sending therewith two forms but the same came to be received by the complainant on 17.1.2003, unfortunately, after the proposed life assured died of accident on 2.1.2003 (during midnight between 1.1.2003 and 2.1.2003). The complainant, therefore, lodged claim for the amount of policy coupled with accident benefit on the ground that since the demand draft for the premium was sent, there was a completed contract of life insurance under the aforesaid plan. Even in the affidavit in rejoinder, the complainant has asserted that what the opponent Insurance Company did was to sent communication dated 28.12.2002 containing the counter offer. It would, therefore, necessarily mean that even according to the complainant, the original proposal submitted by the proposed life assured was not accepted by the opponent Insurance Company. What it did was to send a counter offer by letter dated 28.12.2002 offering basic benefit of Rs. 10 lakhs instead of the original proposed benefit of Rs. 15,00,000/ -. It has been recited in last para of the letter that on acceptance of revised plan so offered, balance amount of premium of Rs. 4,406/ - would be refunded to the proposed life assured. It would, therefore, clearly appear on the face of the admitted facts that there was no concluded contract of life insurance as between the proposed life assured and the opponent Insurance Company. If there was no concluded contract of insurance, there was no question of rendition of service of insurance by the opponent Insurance Company to the proposed life assured or for that matter her heirs and legal representatives or nominees.;